decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Decbell, you only presented one interpretation in a quick email to the commissioner. You didn't take the time to outline the other argument and let him decide which one made more sense in the spirit of the Winter Bulletin. I didn't feel it was appropriate to copy and paste the entire correspondence with him on a public message board. I did, in fact, present to him the opposite side's argument and I tried to do your side of the discussion the most justice I could. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, I just want everyone to follow the same rules and have some consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Just remember, A sets the mark and is never dropped out of the debate. ...until he has a head to head loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Nope nothing personal. And while I agree with you that the system does not always create the best result, it is put in place to ensure documented information (head to head, common opponent, proven ability in last years event, win percentage) rather than subjective arguments (strength of schedule, etc) are not dominating the discussion. I think strength of schedule could be a factor on either side of the argument. The only thing that has been proven on the mat is that C beat one of the other two possibilities in a head to head match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I think strength of schedule could be a factor on either side of the argument. The only thing that has been proven on the mat is that C beat one of the other two possibilities in a head to head match. what if A was an average wrestler at best which is why he lost to C but he has that great looking win % because he wrestles scrubs every week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Since some of you asked for it, here is the other part of the e-mail to Mr. Faulkens "The interpretation of other coaches: B-C-A Since Wrestler C beat Wrestler A, they want to eliminate A from consideration, and then they compare B with C, and, having no head to head, they give the one seed to Wrestler B by virtue of his higher win percentage. They then reset the seeding and give Wrestler C the 2 seed over wrestler A." Once again, Mr. Faulkens agreed that the seeding should be C-A-B when presented both sides of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 So that we are all in agreement, is there anything anybody disputes with my wording? I thought I conveyed your side of the argument exactly as you have been making it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 This came from the same Sectional where we had a coach whose team wrestled a schedule full of non-IHSAA sanctioned Baptist schools and then was trying to claim winning percentage over everyone with no common opponents. I really think the IHSAA should send a trained, uninterested, third party to moderate these seeding meetings. C, A, B was the final result we arrived at in this meeting, which was arrived at by C's Athletic Director at C's host Sectional who was not interested in any discussion and actually told all dissenters (of which there was a majority had it gone to a vote) that they were wrong. The IHSAA interpretation means very little to me. In the Winter Bulletin it references that we only care about separating the best wrestlers until the finals. Why seed 6 at all? Let's just pick the best 2 and seed them. After all, the IHSAA only cares about who the State Champion is at the end of the day. I would wager a years salary that none of these three in question are the State Champion this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That is your problem, you never "drop" A out of the discussion. A sets the bar with the highest win %. C can jump him B cannot. It's that simple. No one is eliminated. You can't make an argument for win % over C without having a qualifying seeding criteria advantage over A. Just remember, A sets the mark and is never dropped out of the debate. A can not "set the bar" based on the win percentage since win percentage is one of the lower criteria. You must follow the criteria in order. The first criteria that separates any of the three is the first one head to head. Due to that C is the first person that can set any type of bar and try to lay claim to possibly getting the #1 seed due to the win over A. Wrestler A shouldn't be part of the top seed discussion at all because of that loss to C nor can A claim any sport over C. based on the information presented and criteria listed. Wrestler A then is not a factor in the discussion going forward nor should he have even made a claim for the top seed to start with. However nothing has taken B out of the discussion yet. So their is still a deadlock on who gets the seed between B and C. The first criteria listed which is able to separate the deadlock between C and B is the winning percentage, giving B the advantage and thus the 1 seed. Then the criteria resets for everyone still involved in which case C's win over A will give him the 2nd seed. The fact that Wrestler A is in the discussion for the #1 seed at all is the problem when they already know they have a head to head loss to C. Wrestler A being suggested at a possible seed know were topped by the head to head lose is what is throwing off this entire situation. This issue would show me that either wrestlers A's coaches coaches do not understand the criteria for seeding or were trying to manipulate the system in their favor because of they had the best win percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I think strength of schedule could be a factor on either side of the argument. Unfortunately, strength of schedule is harder to place into an concrete form, unlike the other criteria listed. Thus, why it is not provided as part of the seeding criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 A can not "set the bar" based on the win percentage since win percentage is one of the lower criteria. You must follow the criteria in order. The first criteria that separates any of the three is the first one head to head. Due to that C is the first person that can set any type of bar and try to lay claim to possibly getting the #1 seed due to the win over A. Wrestler A shouldn't be part of the top seed discussion at all because of that loss to C nor can A claim any sport over C. based on the information presented and criteria listed. Wrestler A then is not a factor in the discussion going forward nor should he have even made a claim for the top seed to start with. However nothing has taken B out of the discussion yet. So their is still a deadlock on who gets the seed between B and C. The first criteria listed which is able to separate the deadlock between C and B is the winning percentage, giving B the advantage and thus the 1 seed. Then the criteria resets for everyone still involved in which case C's win over A will give him the 2nd seed. The fact that Wrestler A is in the discussion for the #1 seed at all is the problem when they already know they have a head to head loss to C. Wrestler A being suggested at a possible seed know were topped by the head to head lose is what is throwing off this entire situation. This issue would show me that either wrestlers A's coaches coaches do not understand the criteria for seeding or were trying to manipulate the system in their favor because of they had the best win percentage. I was dead set on CAB until just now and I think I am flip flopping to BCA. However...take a look at this: Wrestler A: 23-2 lost to wrestler C Wrestler B: 11-19 wrestled neither A nor C Wrestler C: 10-20 ---beat wrestler A SO - the #1 seed is B, #2 is C and #3 is A? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic13s Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 i dispute this...isnt it 3.6% Dispute noted, answer NO. 83.3-77.7= 5.6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat Stat Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Fortunuately, head-to-head matches at Sectional should straighten it out for Regional. And some of us were fortunuate to have Conference to straighten it out prior to Sectional. This whole thread makes my head hurt! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmak Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Dispute noted, answer NO. 83.3-77.7= 5.6 i dont know what youre talking about lmao forget i asked lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCard Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I was dead set on CAB until just now and I think I am flip flopping to BCA. However...take a look at this: Wrestler A: 23-2 lost to wrestler C Wrestler B: 11-19 wrestled neither A nor C Wrestler C: 10-20 ---beat wrestler A SO - the #1 seed is B, #2 is C and #3 is A? B can not be seeded because he has a losing record and does not meet criteria a.,b., or c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic13s Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I was dead set on CAB until just now and I think I am flip flopping to BCA. However...take a look at this: Wrestler A: 23-2 lost to wrestler C Wrestler B: 11-19 wrestled neither A nor C Wrestler C: 10-20 ---beat wrestler A SO - the #1 seed is B, #2 is C and #3 is A? No, C,A, B can't be seeded. This happens all the time?? At 113 at central it was like this Win % order as follows. 1. Matherly (NO) 2. Pellacer (GS) 3. Luigs (MD) Luigs beat Matherly, Matherly and Pellacer never wrestled nor have any common opponents. Luigs seeded 1 Matherly seeded 2 Pellacer seeded 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 B can not be seeded because he has a losing record and does not meet criteria a.,b., or c. why can B not be seeded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frigginhurts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 No, C,A, B can't be seeded. This happens all the time?? At 113 at central it was like this Win % order as follows. 1. Matherly (NO) 2. Pellacer (GS) 3. Luigs (MD) Luigs beat Matherly, Matherly and Pellacer never wrestled nor have any common opponents. Luigs seeded 1 Matherly seeded 2 Pellacer seeded 3 so Luigs takes out Matherly because of H2H but Pellacer has a higher winning pct. why isn't pellacer ahead of luigs since they didn't wrestle H2H? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic13s Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 why can B not be seeded? If he doesn't have a win over a common opponent or a head to head win over other remaining candidates, a wrestler with a losing record cannot be seeded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCard Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 why can B not be seeded? 6. Determination of seeded wrestlers is given in order of importance: a. Head to head competition; (The wrestler with the most head to head wins gets the seed. If they have beaten each other an equal number of times, then the winner of the last match gets the seed.); b. Record against common opponents; c. Semi‐State quarterfinalist in IHSAA Tournament Series; d. A contestant with the best overall record (winning percentage) who has wrestled at least 10 matches; e. Farthest advancement in previous year IHSAA State Tournament Series; f. Draw by lot. Criteria is reset after determining each seed. NOTE: A wrestler with less than ten matches may not be seeded ahead of a wrestler with at least ten matches and a winning record unless he/she meets criteria in a, b or c. A wrestler with a losing record may not be seeded unless he/she meets criteria a, b or c unless there are less than six (6) wrestlers in the bracket. Wrestler B is 11-19 in your scenerio and has not met criteria a,b, or c. Wrestler C is 10-20 but has met criteria a. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Based on Mr. Faulkens and Decbell's Interpretation: Wrestler A: 29-1, loss to Wrestler C Wrestler B: 28-2, has not wrestled Wrestler A or C, nor anyone who beat A or C Wrestler C: 1-29, win over Wrestler A No other common opponents, none are semi-state quarterfinalists Based on the IHSAA posted interpretation, we are to seed this C, A, B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCard Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Just for the record my head hurts reading this topic. Good discussion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic13s Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Based on Mr. Faulkens and Decbell's Interpretation: Wrestler A: 29-1, loss to Wrestler C Wrestler B: 28-2, has not wrestled Wrestler A or C, nor anyone who beat A or C Wrestler C: 1-29, win over Wrestler A No other common opponents, none are semi-state quarterfinalists Based on the IHSAA posted interpretation, we are to seed this C, A, B Yes, as he should be, unless his coaches believe that they are getting an unfair advantage due to a mitigating circumstance in the victory of C over A, and decline the seed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenTowelRack Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 So Wrestler C with a record of 1-29 gets seeded 1st over two wrestlers with a combined record of 57-3. Thanks for the interpretation IHSAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I think anyone saying the solution is "simple" and "obvious" is crazy. Look at it in the way NFL seeding is done for 3 teams: Go down the list until you find one criteria that pertains to all 3 teams. That's win% (A,B,C). Now, the IHSAA wants criteria from earlier in the list to be considered. That's fine; now find the most important criteria that fits 2 teams. That's head-to-head. Now the decision that's so perplexing: do we weigh more heavily the fact that we have a criteria that pertains to all (win%) and move A to the bottom? Or do we weigh more heavily the fact that head-to-head comes first on our list, despite one team not being involved and move C up to the top? It's not obvious at all, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Based on Mr. Faulkens and Decbell's Interpretation: Wrestler A: 29-1, loss to Wrestler C Wrestler B: 28-2, has not wrestled Wrestler A or C, nor anyone who beat A or C Wrestler C: 1-29, win over Wrestler A No other common opponents, none are semi-state quarterfinalists Based on the IHSAA posted interpretation, we are to seed this C, A, B I could easily find the most extreme situation on the other end of the spectrum to support my side also, but I don't think that's necessary. Both sides make their case well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts